Jump to content

Meta:Requests for adminship/Adambro 2

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Adambro

[edit]

I'd like to nominate Adambro for adminship. He's been a Meta-wiki editor since May, active since November, with 462 edits and 97 deleted ones. He had a failed RfA back in November, which was too early for some, but he's continued to do good work here. He may not be as active as some people here, but when he is around, he takes part in a lot of Meta discussion pages, does a lot of work with images and does occasionally find the need for admin tools. As an admin on enwiki, enwikinews and Commons, and an OTRS user he is certainly trustworthy to be an admin. I hope you can support him with me. Majorly (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are old unused images from 2002 remotely useful? Majorly (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
useful for history, of course!--Nick1915 - all you want 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't used anywhere, so I ask again, how are they useful? Majorly (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Important" and "used" are two different things, and have two different meanings. (PS the link is only an example)--Nick1915 - all you want 03:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you or I have used "important" here. I still fail to understand how they are useful. They are not important; if they were they would surely be linked on a page. Since they are orphan, and not at all useful they are not needed. Majorly (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are in the mood for engaging in a "words etymology" controversy, ok np, but you cannot say that an orphan image is not needed, I repeat, there're more than one condition for judging, and those imgs are relevant for historical contest. Important/useful/relevant, you can choose your favorite word, but the substance doesn't change if we want to keep useful/important/relevant this entire project (meta). This is an example of a "strange" RFD, there's not such "historical imgs"... but I remember the same discussion on bid/others imgs's RFD etc.--Nick1915 - all you want 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up then: you're opposing because you disagree with him. OK, that's good to see. Majorly (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take his argument such. Majorly you have no good reason to behave in such a manner I think? Aph.
My understand is that Meta is primarily about the day to day coordination of WMF projects as per Meta:About and Meta:Inclusion policy. Neither document suggests the project is intended to be a historical archive of WMF activities but I would note that the inclusion policy explicitly states that material should be free. It is on this basis that I've nominated unused images from a long period ago where the copyright status is unclear and source information is unused.
I also disagree with Nick's comment that "meta should not be as strict as Commons" as the policies I'm mentioned seem to suggest that this to not be correct. If users want photographs of cities for Wikimania bids, as seems a favourite for questionable images, then they should just "borrow" them if they can't find free alternatives. Our aims are completely different to that of the WMF projects themselves and I don't see how we can justify using copyrighted images under fair use. In fact, it seems that Nick has in the past at least, agreed with this point, deleting an image in agreement with a discussion that fair use shouldn't be allowed.
If Nick or Aphaia feel that historical interest should come before copyright issues then I'd invite them to start a discussion about changing the project scope and inclusion policy because as far as I can see my position is in-line with these policies. Adambro 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Meta:Inclusion policy" was written 2007 by a relatively newbie at that time. The community had nothing to confirm it so it is no policy ratified by the community but rather an useful user essay or guideline. So I think convention over that document. It may not cover every aspect of meta due to his lack of understanding at that time so your argument is pointless. "It is not written so can be ignored or may not be acceptable" is bureaucratic and far from the meta culture in my understanding. Since you try to bring it to meta, I am afraid you are not yet an integratred into this community. --Aphaia 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the inclusion policy does not represent the views of the community then I would have hoped that someone would have raised issue with it by now. It is presented as a policy and it appears no one has questioned this so I'd suggest it has been accepted by the community. On what basis is the community supposed to determine that they should disregard this apparent policy, do you think it is acceptable to pick and choose which policies you want to follow? Adambro 01:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Mønobi 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Per Nick. His requests on VfD seem his interpretation of meta inclusion policy is different from the commonly accepted one: for historical interest. To Majorly, I would like you remind English is not the mother tongue of Nick and corner-picking of non native doesn't help any issues to solve. "Useful" might be not the best word but meta has served to keep things of historical interest. I don't think it appropriate to call it "useful". I think this nomination is still too early to accept. --Aphaia 04:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the one who brought up the word difference, and the images are not of interest anyway Majorly (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Per Nick & Aphaia. I not convinced I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral --Thogo (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Adambro, I trust you, but if there is a copyright problem with some images, just add an appropriate license, or ask the uploader to do so or the owner of the image copyright to get a permission. Deletion of pages of interest should always be the very last way out. Meta is not Commons (luckily!) and its community obviously has other feelings about historical interest and the like. Changed to Oppose Oppose due to Aphaia's comment below. This behaviour does really look like power seeking. --Thogo (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I most definitely would dismiss any such suggestion and the idea that adminship is about power isn't really accurate anyway. Adminship is about additional responsibilities. If wanting to discuss a users concerns about me is "power seeking" then so be it but I think I'd be a poor editor if I didn't take such concerns seriously and seek to address them. Adambro 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Per Nick & Aphaia.--Poetlister 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Marbot 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I say, I strongly oppose for his nomination for two reason. #1 See my talk, I don't think someone is ready for being a meta admin who says "The project scope doesn't cover historical interest as far as I'm aware". People who fail to perceive what is the convention are not welcome for joining the team in my opinion. I don't think I want to see such people have the power to make a speedy deletion here on meta. #2 I don't think it appropriate for candidates to ask every opposers to draw their opinions on their talk. I am afraid it is sort of power seeking. --Aphaia 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I stand by my comments on yours and Nick's talk pages and would note that I have not asked "every opposers to draw their opinions". Rather I have presented a response to the points you have raised with a request to discuss it further which I think is entirely appropriate and is about trying to develop as an editor by understanding others concerns rather than it being some "sort of power seeking". I also stand by my comments that the scope, as per Meta:About, seems to be about organising the day to day running of current WMF projects and the planning of new ones rather than serving as any potential historical archive of WMF activity. Adambro 01:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Aphaia, Adambro has ideas which are different from yours. I read his message on your talk page as an attempt to understand the difference through dialogue. Hillgentleman 11:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not power seeking at all. This is just a disagreement, not about whether he'd be a good admin or not. He's not going to speedy useless old images, he'll put them on RFD. I doubt he'll use the tools much at all, but when he does it'll be for good. The fact you're obviously opposing because you disagree with him over a minor issue is not good. Majorly (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I disagree. I think he wouldn't be a good admin here on meta at this time so oppose. If he understand what meta is, what meta policy actually is and how the consensus has been made is no minor issue in my opinion. And at that point he hasn't had me convinced he is ready for adminship which will give him the power of speedy deletion. You said that he would do so and would not so, but you didn't give the reasoning. You gave only your expectation and an subjective expectation cannot be a concrete basis for discussion. On my part I saw he made failed requests for deletion on a poor argument and lack of understanding what meta is about: in my opinion whoever lack this kind of insight can be hardly a good admin on that project concerned. --Aphaia 14:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Then perhaps I should be removed too, as I happen to agree that pointless old images should be deleted. Majorly (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suspecting that there will never be a point at which I convince Aphaia that I'm ready for adminship. Aphaia has seemed hostile towards me from the outset, commenting in reference to a deletion discussion in which I voted delete at the time of my previous RfA, that "Now I think you shouldn't be granted deletion access on this project. Never." [1] I doubt that anything I do or say will change this. Adambro 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aphaia's comment is not the only one on that page, please see what lar said: "Meta is not like other projects". Nothing will change (for me) if you won't change your idea about meta (Meta!=Commons)--Nick1915 - all you want 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I know other people commented with regards to that deletion but I'd note that I didn't nominate the images for deletion so it cannot be said that all comments relate specifically to my own. I work under no illusions that Meta is Commons and that comparison has never been the basis for my proposed deletions. My deletions nominations, regardless of whether successful which cannot really be said to reflect my own understand of policy, are all related to Meta policies. Specifically that the inclusion policy says all material should be freely licensed and Meta:About says that the project is for the coordination of WMF projects. Therefore, rather than a failed deletion nomination somehow reflecting badly on myself, it suggests that there is instead issues with policies that need to be addressed if these don't reflect the consensus amongst the community. However, I would maintain that whilst there are similarities between all WMF projects, there are of course those linking Meta and Commons, namely the restriction that all material has to be free. To that end, it is necessary to ensure that we know a bit about where images have come from and this seems to be a particular issue with Wikimania bids, too many editors seem to feel it is acceptable to upload copyrighted images to illustrate such bids. I'm not going to feel compelled to dismiss this idea that Meta and Commons have similarities as if I'm wanting to join up to some cult that allows no mention of the "C" word and so if that is what people desire then I'm afraid they're going to have to be disappointed. The similarities are so blindingly obvious only a fool would deny they exist but at the same time I can recognise and appreciate the unique aspects of this project. Adambro 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very soon there will be a rush on all wikis to get rid of Images that fail the Applicable definitions as per the Resolution and the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) kicking in..there will be many changes regarding Images, not only on meta but on all wikis and maybe some images we have in our 'Historical' section may have to go as well ..--Cometstyles 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or maybe not, "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." (their --> EDPs or, better, "No free equivalent").--Nick1915 - all you want 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (little offtopic)[reply]
  • Support Support --.snoopy. 17:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. Reading the above it seems to me that Adambro is being opposed because he would implement Foundation policy on unfree content. Media included on Wikimedia projects must either be free or compliant with unfree image policy - ie. fair use with valid rationale. If I missed the memo that said meta may include unfree images not permitted by fair use to preverse "history" someone will no doubt point me too it. As to inclusion generally, I understand the general wish to keep old unused pages that have a historical significance in the evolution of Wikimedia projects - it would be a shame to lose such pages. But I do not think our desire to keep historical pages should be extended to such an extent that we lose sight of the fat that Wikimedia projects should all be about free content. As a wider point, I am sure Adambro would get community consensus where deleting media might be controversial - he is not the type to act unilaterally. Adambro is trustworthy and should make an effective admin here. WjBscribe 13:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Nick1915. --Brownout(msg) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Opposae arguments do not convince me.--Cato 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Good candidate, and I agree with WjBscribe. RedCoat 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral Aphaia's comment, I am afraid it is sort of power seeking does not convince me all, for Aphaia is very the person who seeks power. However, I will not cast either votes. I think I have to avoid casting support vote as the opposition to Aphaia's unconvincing comments, without ample knowledge about this candidate's appropriateness for adminship itself. Yassie 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • could you please keep this taunting to yourself, its not helping and is disruptive and this is not the right place to slur at someone. This is Adambro's RfA, and comments like this is not helping...--Cometstyles 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing Adambro's comment at Meta talk:Requests for deletion, I'm thinking I may have misunderstood him and that Majorly was right to say that he wouldn't speedy (problematicly licensed) images. But yet, I am not fully convinced he understand how this project is driven in two points, that is, 1) not all of meta convention was written down hence it is not enough to understand meta to understand written policies, specially in our circumstance there has been actually no structure to ratify a policy (rather it may only means some active users are happy with that and others have no interest at all) and 2) coordination on meta is sometimes getting a third party involved, and such coordination is sometimes under time constrained and we have no enough time to have those third parties to learn meta policy and rules, so flexibility and knowledgeable on foundation matter is highly required for meta admin (so his attitude "it is written and it is not, so it is no meta purpose" has me doubt he is ready to be a good admin here) and anyway creating a free content itself is not meta mission (except the case we are preparing a material on meta to publish it later on other places). Shortly he may become a good admin some day but I am not convinced he is now ready. So in this request I think it is appropriate for me to keep my opposing vote. --Aphaia 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to explain your concerns. In response to your first point, my problem is not that there isn't things written down about how things are done, rather that they are but people disagree with it. I appreciate that policies are not set in stone and should be updated as appropriate. However, how am I ever to fully understand this project to your satisfaction? This is what policies are for, they provide users with a clear idea of what is expected. There has been comments by established members of the community that go against pages here which present themselves as policy. This alone is not really enough to prompt me to disregard policies as I cannot understand whether such action would be supported by the community as a whole. If this is the case then the policies need to be updated to reflect this. If, as it appears, you disagree with policy then you should work to propose it be amended otherwise theses pages should be deleted as they are worthless if they aren't supposed to be followed.
    On your second point, I'm sorry but I can't really understand what it is you're getting at. However, I certainly appreciate that as an admin you've sometimes got to use a bit of discretion about what is appropriate and what is not, ultimately if it is obviously in the best interests of the project then any policies shouldn't get in the way of this. I understand that Meta is not in the business of creating free content but rather coordinating and assisting in this but I certainly cannot see how our us of unfree material would contribute towards this. Meta, in its position at the heart of the WMF community should be trying to be a great example of how things should be done and I don't see, as an example, how using copyrighted images on Wikimania bids merely for making the page look pretty can really be justified. Adambro 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for constructive response. While I admit not every images on Wikimania bids don't look like "necessary" but rather "merely for making the page look pretty" but I disagree all such images were so. As a juror, but still on my individual basis, I say so. Some photos, specially venue and accormmodation were helpful for me to evaluate their quality in comparison with previous venues. Other necessary cases were press releases or sponsor page designing (you may remember a logo once used for Wikimania 2005 preparation). WMF may issue a press release with another org jointly, and ideally this kind of materials are better to include related images for convenience for press, even if it is ultimately "for making the page look pretty", to increase visibility of the thing in interest. And as well as the benefit from those images, attitude toward third parties (specially they are going to sponsor us) needs some diplomacy, and enthusiastic image speedy people from Commons are not fully aware of the last point, I'm afraid. --Aphaia 13:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly appreciate that images will be very useful in evaluating Wikimania bid proposals however I feel strongly that unfree images should not be uploaded for illustrating bids and any which may be useful should be simply linked from the page. On your second point, I would accept that in some cases, as I've explained previously, that it might be appropriate to use unfree images but this should only be in very limited cases and so as a general rule Meta should only host free material and my work with regards to deletions reflects this. Adambro 14:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote closed. Not promoted, no consensus.
--.anaconda 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Adambro_2&oldid=2609042"